EDITORIAL: With a driver's license comes responsibility

Students gathered last February at the site where three Campbellsport High School girls were killed in a rollover accident.

On Tuesday, voters will flock to the polls to elect a new president. It's a decision that will impact this country for at least the next four years.

But one day before the election a decision will be made in a Fond du Lac County courtroom that will affect several Campbellsport families, and particularly one 19-year-old girl, for the rest of their lives.

Judge Dale English will determine the appropriate punishment for Carly Ottery, who was driving the car involved in a crash last winter that killed three of her high school friends.

There are voices on both sides of the fence.

"She has suffered and the burden she now carries is enough," some say.

"There must be some punishment for taking three lives," say others.

The issue has divided the small community in southeastern Fond du Lac County, much as politics turned neighbor against neighbor in Wisconsin the past couple of years.

No sentence however harsh will bring the girls back. It will not likely ease the suffering of their families and friends.

The cries of punishment, retribution even, from the families are understandable. Their daughters were killed as a result of negligent, reckless driving on the part of a teenager. Traveling 108 mph is not responsible; it is reckless. It is a poor decision made in the name of fun, with tragic results.

How many other kids have traveled that same road, caught air at the tracks and lived to tell the tale?

That doesn't make it right.

Would the cries for leniency be any different if the car had been full of teenaged-boys? If the kids had been from "the wrong side of the tracks" instead of "good kids" and athletes?

Would we be looking at this case differently if the driver had been drinking, celebrating a 21st birthday, crashed and killed a passenger, his best friend?

Several years ago there was a sentencing for this very type of case in Fond du Lac County. The crushing emotion displayed in court by one man whose night of birthday revelry ended in the crash that killed his best friend was gut-wrenching. No one could look at this young man and believe any prison sentence would punish him any more than he was already punishing himself.

He had chosen not to fight the charges against him. He believed he deserved whatever prosecutors and the judge gave him. He wailed through his repeated apology to the family of his friend - a family that said they did not hold him responsible, that wished him probation.

He received a prison sentence - and not a light one.

A life had been lost, the judge argued. The drinking made him responsible, negligent. We must be tough on drunken driving.

There was no drinking involved in the crash Feb. 4 that killed those three Campbellsport girls. But there is great responsibility when you get behind the wheel of car. You owe it to your passengers to be the responsible one - to not take that risk, to say no when someone - anyone - suggests jumping the tracks, the hills, whatever geographical feature presents itself, to texting and driving - the list goes on.

The question becomes: At what age do we hold people responsible for their actions? Are there differing levels of responsibility depending on age? Certainly.

But we have decided in this country that 16 is the age our children are old enough to drive. Repeat: With that license comes great responsibility.

If you break the law, if you intentionally engage in reckless behavior, you must accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions - whether you mean harm or not.

Bad things happen to good people all the time. People engage in reckless behavior without ever giving a thought to the unintended consequences. It doesn't mean the law shouldn't hold them accountable.

This driver is not a hardened criminal. She doesn't have a prior record. But does probation send the message we want our kids to hear when something like this happens? Some time in jail with work release privileges and community service doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request in this case.

Perhaps the question Monday is not: What is fair for this young girl who has so much life ahead of her, but, instead, what is just for everyone?